RoR: Forum

Yes Dean, as a hawk, I agree completely. I'd go further and say "resumption of war to remove Saddam due to his abrogation of the 1991 armistice by force (firing on us and killing his own people) fraud (stringing along Hans Blix) and subversion of willing leftist collaborators through the Oil for Food plan." By allowing the left to define the terms of the debate, Bush has let them dominate it.

But the Domestic left, while it proves a comfort to our enemies, seems about as potent an enemy as Uday, Qusay, Saddam and Zarqawi.

Ted Keer

Post 21

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:18am

I�m curious about those who voted that they haven�t taken a position on this issue. In not taking a position, aren�t they actually opposed to the war, since that is the side that holds presumption? The burden lies on those advocating the war to build a strong case in favor of it, and until one is convinced of such an argument, it seems to me that they are against it by default.

Joe makes excellent points regarding the philosophical errors made by those opposed to the war. There certainly have been rationalist arguments which were, as he pointed out, attempts by intrinsicists to reach decisions without reference to reality. Similarly, those supporting the war were prone to arguments which combined pragmatism and emotionalism in an attempt to reach decisions without reference to principles. There have been errors on both sides. Intrinsicism and rationalism on the one hand, empiricism and nominalism on the other.

Some who oppose the war have expressed belief in conspiracy theories and such that seek to hold the US government responsible for its own destruction. And the pro-war crowd is quick to blame all Americans who oppose the war as being the cause of the problem. So on both sides, there has been the �Blame America� syndrome.

One thing that I find interesting about this poll is that there is roughly an equal amount of people who have been steadfast in their position, whether it was for or against. A sizable group was able to rethink things and change their position. All of them moved from being for the war, to being opposed to it. So far in this poll, the group supporting the war is comprised solely of people who had taken that position from the get-go.

I admire people who can admit error and change their positions on things. Unfortunately, on this issue, I can�t count myself among them. Based on the justifications and rationale made by the administration, I have been against this war from the start, though not adamantly so. My opposition has increased as the rationale has become more and more altruistic.

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 12/17, 10:03pm)

Post 22

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:47am

Eric,

From my own view, your description of the undecided is insightful (that that entails a default position of being against the Iraq War -- due to where the burden of proof falls in such a case). This insight of yours explains my previous behavior of arguing primarily with "Iraq War" advocates, rather than primarily or equally with "anti-Iraq War" advocates.

I qualified the "War" as being the one in Iraq -- because I have been in support of the Afghanistan War (and hunting down Osama) from the beginning.

Ed

Post 23

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:54am

Question for Eric.

What do you think would be the ramifications from a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq?

P.S. I would've liked a 5th option, I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning because I thought it wasn't the highest prioritized threat, but since the war started, I support finishing what was started.
(Edited by John Armaos on 12/17, 10:58am)

Post 24

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:39am

Ed,
Like you, I supported the attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

John,
There may be negative ramifications if we were to withdraw immediately. There may also be negative ramifications if we continue to stay. When Ayn Rand was asked about the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, she said, "It's certainly the fault of our foreign policy, and at present, there's no right course of action. It's too late." I feel somewhat the same in regard to where we stand now in Iraq. I like your fifth option, and given a compelling case for continued presence, it may be the option I'd select.

Post 25

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 12:03pm

There's always a right course of action, it might not be the Platonic ideal but one can never say there is no right course of action. Why don't you try concretizing the positive and negative ramifications to either staying or leaving Iraq. List them both for me. Then tell me you think there's no right course of action.

Edited: I think I was originally a little too harsh

PS Please note I don't anyone to mistake my position, while I thought Iraq wasn't at the top of the list I nonetheless thought it was on the list of countries that are a threat to the Western world. It openly financed Islamo-fascist terrorists, that is enough reason to consider it a threat.
(Edited by John Armaos on 12/17, 12:26pm)

Post 26

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 3:34pm

John, though your request was directed at Eric, I'd like a chance to answer.

=======================

STAYING IN IRAQ

Positives
-with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. troops in Iraq, and U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf -- we've got Iran President, Ahmadinijad, surrounded (in case he goes nuclear).
-with thousands of U.S. businesses in Iraq, we've got pull-peddling power that can be used in order to manipulate the price of oil (we can let the Iraq economy crumble -- by pulling out key U.S. companies -- if they don't agree to sell us oil at a low price)
-we show Islamo-Fascists that they're not dealing with a paper tiger

Negatives
-our troops will keep getting maimed and/or killed
-our tax burden will reach several thousand dollars per U.S. taxpayer (already over $2000 per taxpayer -- I believe)

=======================

LEAVING IRAQ

Positives
-less troops die
-less tax burden

Negatives
-we loose the 3 positives mentioned in regard to staying
-we "give up" 10-20% of the land in the Middle East -- which might then, in part if not in whole, fall into the hands of Islamo-Fascist terrorists

=======================

Ed

Post 27

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 8:14pm

Further concretization:
STAY IN IRAQ
My nephew is killed there.
LEAVE IRAQ
My nephew comes home safely.

I apologize, but further concretization is just impossible for me, for you see, I am nothing but a Floating Abstraction. I know my profile says I live in New York City, but actually I live in the Platonic World of Forms. I am cut off from reality and unable to tie abstract ideas to concretes. On my way out of the house (not a specific house, mind you, but the form "house") I ambled past my vacuum cleaner (once again, not a Hoover or a Bissell, but the ideal "vacuum cleaner") and it nearly sucked the life out of me. I stepped outside and fell onto the concrete. Or I should say, I fell onto the abstraction "concrete." Such is the problem of universals.

So, let me try again. Here goes:
STAY IN IRAQ
We win and the Islamo-Fascists are destroyed. We live happily ever after!
LEAVE IRAQ
The Islamo-Fascists take over the world. I am forced to pray five times a day facing Mecca. I am forced to choose between being a Sunni or being a Shiite. I tell them that there is no right course of action. But then you come over and tell me that there's always a right course of action. So I pick "Sunni" since that's what you picked. Plus it sounds more like "sunshine" where the other sounds like poop. So, there we are, two Sunni muslims. Then two Shiites come over and behead us.

Okay, now that I've done all this concretization, I definitely see your point. We need to stay in Iraq for however long it takes at whatever the cost.

On a sincere note, John, the reason I kid is to point out that anyone can list possible ramifications to make their own case. Hillary could tell us horror stories of what will become of us if we don't adopt universal healthcare. Ron Paul can detail a cataclysmic future if we don't change the money system. Politicians, professors and pedestrians can all make conjectures. There are some areas where I am educated and informed enough to venture such predictions, but this ain't one of them. If experts in military strategy, weighing the costs and benefits, suggest a proper course of action in Iraq which means several more years of investment, I will most likely support it. But that doesn't mean I support the war, only the mechanism to be done with it.

Post 28

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 12:40am

Eric, I had a couple comments on your posts.

You say (in post 21) that those who haven't taken a position are opposed to the war, since the burden lies on those proving it. If that were the case, then I think I would count as an example of someone who was "opposed" to the war, and changed my mind. But I don't think that's quite right. I wasn't opposed to it, in the sense that I didn't think the war was wrong.

You mentioned in your last post (27) that you'd be willing to take the opinion of the experts on the best course of action in terms of course of action in Iraq now. But I could argue the same way. At first, I didn't have the information necessary to decide whether I thought the war was a good idea or not. Since I accepted that the war was justifiable, whether or not it was the best course of action, I was willing to temporarily accept the opinions of the experts. The evidence was in their favor, even if the whole picture wasn't complete.

So is there a conflict between these two views? In one, if I don't have an opinion, I'm opposed to the war. In the other, if I don't have an opinion, I can accept the opinions of experts who are for it.

I think part of the problem is that there's always been more than one question being asked, and this poll didn't make it clear. The first question is whether the war was a moral option. Many on the anti-war side declared it an evil act of aggression, an initiation of force, imperialism, etc. The pro-war side argued that we have a right to overthrow a dictator, that by the terms of the past peace agreement and Saddam's violation of it we were legally allowed and preferred to reopen hostilities, and that there were other legitimate reasons to wage it.

That leaves open the second question. Did you think we should wage this particular war?

Those who think the war was not a moral option at all don't have to answer this. Their answer is obviously no. But those who thought it was morally optional have to answer the more specific question. The second question deals with facts, evidence, the law, treaties, our long-term interests, etc.

Given the way most of the debate has hinged on whether the war was even a moral option, it's not surprising that many people who didn't really support the war felt the need to vote either that they didn't have an opinion, or that they supported it since they found it to be a moral option.

In that light, the poll looks different. Those who said they were for it and still are may be admitting to a change of opinion, like I did explicitly. So no, those who support the war are not those who supported it from the get-go.

Those who say they never had an opinion might in fact have an opinion on whether it is morally optional, but never decided whether they really supported it or not. So again, that's not exactly opposing the war. In that case, they could be viewed as supporting it, in the sense of considering it a moral option, while not supporting it in the sense of agreeing it was the best course of action.

Post 29

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 10:57am

Joe,

As always, your intelligent arguments challenge me. I�d like to begin by defending my view that those that are undecided are, by default, in opposition to the war.

I think you would agree with me that when a person says simply, �I don�t have an opinion on man�s role in global warming� that by default, they aren�t convinced that man plays such a role, because the burden lies on those asserting the theory. But if someone says, �I don�t have an opinion about man�s role in global warming, so I�ll trust Al Gore � then in fact, the person does have an opinion: Al Gore�s opinion! In the first case, an opinion hasn�t been taken. In the second, one has.

You wrote:

At first, I didn't have the information necessary to decide whether I thought the war was a good idea or not. Since I accepted that the war was justifiable, whether or not it was the best course of action, I was willing to temporarily accept the opinions of the experts.

Here we are in total agreement. This is exactly where I was. We both came to a conclusion that the war was justifiable, but for me that is not yet lending support to the war. At that point, I am still undecided. I withheld my support until I was satisfied that the word �justifiable� became the word �justified.� It didn�t, which is why I remain at the starting point, which is in opposition.

To clarify the distinction between �justifiable� and �justified,� consider this analogy: A murderer has been apprehended. There is irrefutable evidence that he is guilty. At this point, a death penalty or life-imprisonment would be justifiable. However, let�s say that we live in a very strange time and place in which this criminal is brought into court, tried, and convicted�not for the murders he committed, but rather, for being a Jew. He is to be executed, and although a death penalty is justifiable, it was inadequately justified.

If I were to support his execution, I would be implicitly supporting anti-semitism. Of course, I don�t support the murderer, but I also don�t support the justification given for killing him. As much as I might like to see the murder executed, I�d be opposed to the verdict. If I were to support his execution, I would be a pragmatist of the lowest order.

Though many people had wonderful justifications for the invasion, they weren�t the ones given by the administration. For me, if I support the war, I am also supporting the official justifications for it.
Was the war a moral option? Yes.
Did I think we should wage this particular war? No, not for the reasons given.

I will concede to your final point which refutes my assertion that the poll indicated that all those who support the war held that position from the get-go. Your own case disproves that.

Thank you, Joe, for your thoughtful analysis and argument. It�s always a pleasure debating and discussing things with you.

Post 30

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 12:01pm

ooops. I just realized a contradiction on my part. I may have given up on that last point too abruptly. As I indicated in the beginning of the last post, willingness to defer to the judgement of someone else is not the same as being "undecided." At that point, a decision has been made. Joe, maybe this explains why your first response in answering the poll was to say that you were in support of it from the beginning?

Post 31

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 2:47pm

Eric,

I appreciate the respect you offer in these disagreements we have. And especially, I appreciate your willingness to continue thinking about the issues, whether by altering your views or by coming up with ever more intelligent arguments.

My main point in the previous post was that there are in fact two questions, and since one has had much more visibility (is the war justifiable), I think the answers in the poll need to be interpreted accordingly. I think we agree that there are two questions there, and that at least some of us who said we initially supported the war picked that option only in terms of whether it was a moral option, and not necessarily that we really were in favor of it.

The second point is whether those who thought it was a moral option, but didn't particularly favor it (it wasn't justified enough), can say that they had no opinion. That is, that they didn't support it, or oppose it.

I think both supporting and opposing are not passive positions (dealing only with the second question of whether the war should actually be undertaken). They're active positions, meaning you are committed to one side or the other. If you support it, you actually think it's the right thing to do, and would defend that position to some extent. If you oppose the war, you actually think it should not happen, and would argue against doing it.

When I read the poll, I couldn't vote for "I was initially against the war" because in fact I did not oppose it. I didn't have an opinion. It was more of a passive response. I wasn't in any way committed to either side.

I can see that you'd like to frame it as "for the war" versus "not for the war". But not being for it allows for a real lack of opinion or non-commitment. Being "against" the war seems like you've made up your mind.

It'd be like asking someone what they thought of gay marriage. On one side there's the equal rights issue. On the other, what the hell is government doing involved in marriage? If marriage is an illegitimate function, which allows people to initiate force against each other, that might trump the equality issue. Given all of this and more, it could be that someone genuinely doesn't have the answers. But to lump them in with those who oppose it seems like it's not a fair portrayal.

Not being for something is not the same as being against it.

Post 32

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 3:51pm

On a sincere note, John, the reason I kid is to point out that anyone can list possible ramifications to make their own case.

Are you implying they are all equally valid? Obviously if many people list ramifications that are in contradiction to one another, they can't all be right.

While none of us have a crystal ball that can accurately predict the future, we can have some reasonable expectations to the consequences of our actions. We obviously do because we live life basing our actions on what our reasonable expectations of future consequences will be. And I think we can make reasonable predictions on what would happen to Iraq based on past history (Vietnam is an example), and how tyrants generally respond to signs of weakness (it generally emboldens them because they think their terrorist actions will not be challenged).

To think for some reason the behavior of evil men will all of sudden change because somehow Iraq is different, runs contrary to everything we know about how evil men act. We can use Occam's Razor here to base what the most likely scenario would be. And a withdrawal would most likely embolden terrorists to continue their attack, to take back Iraq and claim it as their new safe-haven for exporting terrorism. I don't think abandoning Iraq will mean as you admittedly insincerely put it will result in Islam taking over the world and making us choose between Sunni and Shiite religion, but I think that is an absurd benchmark for dictating our actions. I would think you didn't like it when Islamo-fascists killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, so I think that is enough motivation to try to act in our defense from such heinous attacks. So we can allow Iraq to fall to Islamo-fascists, or we can work towards establishing a pro-west Iraqi government determined to root out Islamo-fascists.

Will such a government be completely divorced from Islamic influence? Probably not, but that's an unrealistic goal for the immediate short-term future and not wholly necessary to our defense. Turkey is a government under a predominately Islamic culture, but Turkey is not a threat. It's certainly not a free country like our own, but it at least has the potential to change under its current institutions, and its current regime would not allow thugs like Hamas, Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda to have free reign whereas countries like Syria and Iran do give terrorists free reign (and Iran that openly, not covertly, finances them)

(Edited by John Armaos on 12/18, 7:05pm)

Post 33

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 6:56pm

Eric Rockwell's absolutely hilarious post!

The Islamo-Fascists take over the world. I am forced to pray five times a day facing Mecca. I am forced to choose between being a Sunni or being a Shiite. I tell them that there is no right course of action. But then you come over and tell me that there's always a right course of action. So I pick "Sunni" since that's what you picked. Plus it sounds more like "sunshine" where the other sounds like poop. So, there we are, two Sunni muslims. Then two Shiites come over and behead us.

Elaboration: sounds like "shit" pronounced by Shaggy (scooby-doo's best friend).
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 12/18, 7:02pm)

Post 34

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 7:12pm

I don't really know what to make of that comment from Eric. If he wants to be insincere, then should I respond sincerely or insincerely? I can certainly do either. Whatever you prefer Eric.

Post 35

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 7:17pm

Joe,
Interesting distinctions you draw. It might be worth trying to formulate another poll in the future that better reflects these nuances.

Dean,
Thanks!

John,
Please take my sense of humor in the good-natured spirit I meant it.

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 12/18, 7:24pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 7:25pm

Ok Eric fair enough, will do.

Post 37

Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 11:00am

John,
In another thread, you made an eloquent rebuttal to Jordan's advocacy of government involvement in economic issues. I sanctioned your post. One thing you wrote there got me to thinking about our discussion:

It's an extremely complex system with a myriad of variables each influencing each other, and throwing technology and innovation into the mix, then it becomes an impossibility to know the future outcomes of markets. I don't trust my government to provide me healthcare or a pension plan, but now Jordan you are expecting me to trust them to be economic Czars.

For me, the same applies to the government's attempts at nation-building. The reason I prefer not to state that staying in Iraq is a good choice, is that I don't want to make Jordan's mistake. I don't want to portray "an extremely complex system with a myriad of variables" as a simple case of win or lose. How will we even know when victory is achieved there? If the goal to be reached is the creation of a pro-western government, what is the objective criteria for knowing when that has been established?

You brought up Vietnam. If we had left Vietnam six months earlier, think of the huge amount of value which would have been conserved, both financially and in terms of human lives. Or should we have stayed six months longer? Consider that expense....would it have been worth it? It's a cost/benefit analysis that is very complex. And just as you prefer to err on the side of less government involvement in economic issues, I similarly prefer less government involvement in nation-building.

Post 38

Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 11:56am

Eric while I agree it sounds intoxicating to use the same premise when it comes to national defense, I don't think the context is the same and I think that is the problem with Ron Paul and other Libertarians. They think it's the same. Interfering in the market place does not serve our rational self-interests, it never has, whereas acting in the defense of our nation is in our rational self-interests and has yielded net benefits.

You brought up Vietnam. If we had left Vietnam six months earlier, think of the huge amount of value which would have been conserved, both financially and in terms of human lives. Or should we have stayed six months longer? Consider that expense....would it have been worth it?

Eric if you can dig up a thread that was discussed a while back, I believe the topic was a quote from one of my posts "The Vietnam war was not lost, it was canceled" I believe this is the link:

Link

To sum up shortly, there are a lot of myths about the Vietnam war and it is surprising how little Americans know of that war despite it being the most documented war in history (with the possible exception of latter wars). But to speak briefly about Vietnam, abandoning the South Vietnamese was a huge disaster for America. It left America to be seen as the paper tiger and aggressor nations have taken advantage of that weakness ever since Vietnam, and the abandonment of South Vietnam directly lead to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years later. The Soviets had new found encouragement their aggression would go unchallenged and Afghanistan was the first nation the Soviets outright invaded with a standing army since WW2.

(Edited by John Armaos on 12/20, 1:26pm)

Post 39

Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 12:23pm